Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

True.....but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself!

 

Now down to business... all of a sudden the Americans are awakened by a realistic situation... Read here...

US to Palestinians: Hold your tongues if you want a state

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

~Ryan Jones

The Obama Administration is urging senior Palestinian officials to keep their views about Israel and its leaders to themselves for the time being if they want the current negotiations to bear fruit and result in the establishment of a Palestinian state.

So said Palestinian officials who spoke to Israel’s Ynet news portal on Tuesday.

The Palestinians said the Americans cited as an example a recent interview given by Mohammed Dahlan during which the senior aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas characterized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “liar” and said the peace talks had little chance with someone like him at Israel’s helm.

The White House was also reportedly frustrated by constant leaks by Palestinian officials regarding details of the negotiations, with added commentary that the Palestinians don’t like the way things are going.

The American reaction to this phenomenon highlights one of the primary deficiencies of the current peace process. Washington has for the past decade-and-a-half been focused on concluding a final status Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, regardless of whether or not an atmosphere conducive to peaceful coexistence actually exists.

That the Palestinian leadership and the majority of the public fed by its statements still view Israel and the Jews as an enemy to be hated and ultimately defeated is not seen by the US as being in any way detrimental to the prospects of a lasting peace.

EIther that, or the US administration doesn’t actually care about peace, but is rather more interested in a diplomatic achievement for itself.

 

Where do you get the 'sovereign' bit from? You still can't show it, can you; after all your dozens of posts, you are still incapable.

We don't need to challenge the 'facts' of your paragraph above, because the word 'sovereign' simply was not used. The onus is instead on YOU to show it by far more robust means that wishy-washy anecdotes, and so far you have failed spectacularly.

Time to face it mate; the Jews were offered a homeland in Palestine, not a racist Zionist country in another country. You remain *CLANG* empty.

LOL ... do you think that substitutes for being able to show that Churchill didn't know what he meant, and that the approval of the Mandate didn't mean what the actual text stated?

Just show where the approvals themselves granted this sovereign Jewish state. You are so cute wriggling on the end of the string in your inability to do so. You can't, can you. Just face the fact.

LOL ... have you managed to convince HBendor of that? And we note your attempted smudging in trying to morph 'homeland' into 'national state'. You are just so trnasparent in trying to glaze over the huge hole in your claim of approval of statehood by 'Balfour'.

Señor Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

 

We don't need to suppose I'm right as it is well documented historically.

And what I do about it is relatively unimportant but what Israel does about it is not. So long as Israel refuses to address it's violations of the Rights of Individuals it will remain a tyrannical nation. Only when the Israel People and the Israeli government stand up for all human and civil Rights will it deserve recognition as a ligitimate nation. Until then it will be rightfully condemned for it's tyranny.

So what is Israel going to do about it's past acts of tyranny?????

 

I would have to agree with this opinion. For the United States to broker a peace accord it has to do so from a neutral position instead of it's historical pro-Israeli position. It must bring all of the parties to the table and not just the PLO and Israel. Hamas needs to be represented as well. Additionally all past acts of tyranny by Israel as well as past terrorist attacks by both Hamas and the PLO against the Israeli civilian population of Israel need to be addressed. Both sides have committed human Rights violations and those violations need to be at the forefront of any negotiations.

From my perspective the most important issue for Israel is the ending of any terrorists attacks against the Israeli civilian population by the Palestinians. Without those acts coming to an end there is no reason for Israel to agree to a peace accord.

For the Palestinians the most important issue is the return of the territories occupied during the 6-Day war and thereafter but they also have a serious issue related to the violations of the Rights of the non-Jewish population by Israel since it's founding.

I don't believe a peace accord can be realized if it only addresses an agreement between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and certainly US Sect. of State Hillary Clinton is grossly incompetent and isn't the right person to even be attempting to negotiate a peace accord.

 

<<< Mod Edit: Insult Removed >>>
The promise was achieved, 77% was lobbed of and 63 years later we are an independent country, we are the strongest country in the Middle East and all the Arab countries are envious of our achievements.

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed >>> .

 

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>> You have failed to define the end of the Mandate in August 1948, you cannot apparently corroborate it. (Something that you insist and persist it is in annals of history)

 

I have done so on at least 3 previous occasions. Such is the nature of myths. But I will do it again. Here it comes:

UN General Assembly resolution 181, Part 1, Section A, first sentence: "The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948." Duly corroborated!! <<< Mod Edit: Response to Flamebaiting >>>

What usually happens now is that the Zionist apologists claim that .... but we have been through that many times before and have formal legal documents at hand.

 

UN Resolution 181 was a recommendation that carried no authority whatsoever. The British unilaterally withdrew ending the Mandate without granting any authority or territory to any political entity in 1948.

This is really off topic though and it is an attempt to derail the actual topic of this thread which is the current peace negotiations.

 

Sorry Shiva, this time I have to disagree with you. UNGA resolution 181 in itself carried no authority. That was not the point. It was clearly intended to be a 'testing of the water' of the UNSPOL recommendations. And the Mandate Holder undertook, prior to voting, to abide with the outcome. So, although 181 has no 'clout' in itself, if you follow the process in detail, it defined WHAT the Mandate Holder would agree to.

Regarding being off topic; sure!! So lets copy and paste to a new thread.

Capiche? Si; No?

 

Here is the first part of Resolution 181 that the Arabs refused (killed) and the Jews accepted...


United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947
The General Assembly, Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a Special Committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future Government of Palestine at the second regular session;

Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364)(1) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by l August 1948;

(to give your personal interpretation of an official documentation is simply not correct in a give and take forum...)
This would have been acceptable if one would have brought this as a DEFACTO historical event, which it is not...
Sooooo your persistense in misevaluating a recommendation is by itself a dishonest statement unheard/unread anywhere...

The Last British soldier left long before that... That it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 Aug 48, IS NOT a declaration that the Mandate Palestine has ENDED!!!!


Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

 

You are quite correct, HBendor, plans to, or actual, evacuation by the British, are indeed NOT declarations that the Mandate has ended. In fact we all well know that the British left by 15th May 1948.

If you had read my response, you would know that the parts of UNGA Resolution 181 which you quoted are NOT those governing the end of the mandate. What in fact caused the Mandate to end was Part 1 Section A First sentence (click) which reads "The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948." THAT is what snuffed out the Mandate and causes it no longer to be in force. The words are super clear.

But I presented you with that reference only 2 days ago when you claimed that I could not substantiate the ending of the Mandate by 1st August 1948 at the latest. So what is the point of this latest discussion - a strawman? The Mandate is dead. Can we move on now and accept that post-1967 settlements therefore have no legality if their support is based on a dead Mandate?

By the way, this topic was addressed to finality, with the exact same conclusion, on this very same thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...ll-israel-really-withdraw-11.html#post2862503

This is what we mean by Myths. You kill them and later, when proponents believe that the dust has settled and these outcomes are forgotten, they are resuscitated.

 

Why do jews need special laws and rules to allow them to move somewhere, but arab muslims can move anywhere they want?

 

Arab Muslims cannot move anywhere they want.Why would you even claim such bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? The Ones in Gaza cannot even get out of there..the ones in the West Bank cannot move either...

 

I have created a thread to specifically address UN General Assembly Resolution 181. While I have the "power" to move all of the posts on this thread to that thread I have not done so as it would be very time consuming.

For those who want to discuss Resolution 181 please do so on the linked thread to prevent further derailing of this thread which is focused on the current peace talks.

http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...al-assembly-resolution-181-a.html#post2969238

 

the walls are closing in closer and closer on the aparthied zionist regime

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...1/10/02/gIQABsBNGL_story.html?wprss=rss_world

Panetta is correct as Israel becomes more and more isolated as a nation. Israel needs to come to the negotiation table and must accept that the 1967 "greenline" is the starting point for negotiations on territorial boundries. Let us remember that historically Israel, based upon UNGA Resolution 181 and the 1949 Armistice it agreed to, is comprised of the territory shown below.



While it is a weird border that was the border that the Israeli Declaration of Independence established. All other occupied territories are subject to negotiation and none of the territory occupied in 1967 and thereafter are a part of Israel based upon UNSC Resolution 242.

The Palestinians are correct in demanding the 1967 greenline borders as the initial territory of Israel based upon history and the 1949 Armistice that Israel has agreed to in 1949. Territories occupied by Israel in 1948-1949 are not a part of the nation of Israel and are subject to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

 

"Weird Border"? It's completely and totally indefensible in any way shape or form. That's not a nation!

The resolving of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict in NO WAY GUARANTEES there will never again be another Arab Israeli war. Your legal mumbo jumbo means nothing next to THE STRATEGIC FACTS ON THE GROUND.

You cannot demand that a nation reduce itself to suicidal borders after it has been repeatedly attacked again and again precisely because those borders are so tempting to attack.

You are not taking into consideration any strategic or military realities on the ground and simply trying to cover them up and ignore them under the rule of law.

These UN resolutions you keep harping about are decades old and are not compatible with the strategic and military security needs of the Israeli people and will leave them defenseless in case of another arab attack that YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE WON'T HAPPEN irregardless of the solving of the Israeli/Palestinian Question.

I can't believe people are so naive they actually believe that if the Israeli/Palestinian question is resolved, peace is assured in perpetuity. That's BULL (*)(*)(*)(*). The moment the Arabs gain a significant strategic advantage in manpower and weaponry they are going to attempt yet another time to wipe out the Zionist State.

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

This merely addresses the idiocy of Zionism that was the primary instrument in establishing the proposed two state solution for Palestine in UNGA Resolution 181 which was not a component of the Britisth Mandate for Palestine. If anyone is to be blamed for the weird borders in Resolution 181 it is the Zionists and not the Arabs.

At the end of the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli conflict Israel and the Arab representatives agreed that territories occupied, which were basically the "greenline" that existed in 1967, did not belong to either Israel or the Arabs and that this territory was subject to a negotiated settlement. That remains the case today. What we also know is that in 1967 the UN Security Council expressly established that any territory occupied by Israel illegally occupied and that Israel was required to withdraw from it.

In fact no borders are secure unless there is a diplomatic solution. Ultimately it is the negotiated settlement of disputes between nations that result in secure borders and not military might.

Negotiated settlements between nations provide for the security of the nation and not military might or border configuration. If a negotiated settlement is never reached even a nation with a perfectly round border which provides the least amount of borders to protect would still be subject to attack. It might be more easily defended but it would not prevent the war and preventing the war is paramount.

The security of the Israeli People is a result of the actions of the Israeli government in refusing to comply with these decades old UN Resolutions and agreements that Israel is a party to. There is never a guarentee that a war will not happen unless all wars are avoided by mutual agreements between nations. So long as nations can reach a mutual accord there will be no war. That is the only guarentee. A nation simply having a strong military does not prevent war at all if they are unwilling to reach agreements with other nations.

If Israel complies with it's prior agreements and with UN Resolutions then the
"Zionist" agenda of ethnic purging becomes a non-issue. If it negotiates a settlement with the Palestinians, with the Lebonnese, with Syria, and with other nations then it will not be threatened with war. It is not Israel that is the problem but instead Zionism which violates the Rights of others that is the problem. Only negotiations which address the violations of the Rights of the Non-Jewish People that live in Palestine, including those that were wrongfully denied the right to return to their homeland in Israel in 1949, will lead to security for Israel regardless of the physical borders to be established.

 

Your analysis is dependent on theoretical legalisms that are not accepted by some other powers. China does not buy into the international legal theory you espouse. If it did it would not now be occupying Tibet and Xinjiang. A new international system is being born which is not based on Western conventions.

 

Panetta is a politician, not an expert on international law.

Israel will never know peace no matter what it does. Some Arabs will always attack Israel no matter what agreements Israel enters into with other Arabs.

 

I've watched decades of peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis go no where because the ideal of a Jewish state and the ideal of the right of return cannot be reconciled under any circumstances.

 

This is false. If Israel were to begin recognition of basic human Rights and International law it would do a lot to eliminate the threats against it.

What is a fact is that as long as Israel does not respect basic human Rights and International law there will always be a threat of war and Israel can anticipate being attacked in the Future.

 

Alright Shiva, you say my contention is false. Can you prove it's falsity? If so do so now. Opinion evidence from nonexperts is inadmissible.